Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8117127" data-attributes="member: 6855114">You know what Tasha's remind me of? For old timers like me it is a new UA.The UA arcana introduced the 9,8,7,6,5,4,3 d6 rolls for stats (which was not like by old DM but loved by those who wanted to do as they pleased).It introduced zounds of new spells and magical items.More classes like the cavalier, barb, thief accrobats, expanded Druids and so on.New races and more rules.And guess what? It was not playtested enough. Just the rolling method is responsible for a lot of the Paladin stupid nerf to paladins because the class was OP as it was now a cavalier subclass.A lot of the changes of the UA were simply not well thougth and litteraly game breaking. Not at a first glance, but when the min/maxer started to appear (min/max was not really a thing at first). It became obvious that something was amiss. I was one of the few DMs to be happy to be called pig headed for not allowing all of the UA because I had recognize the unbalancing effects after only one year. And yet, the "But it is an Official Book" syndrome was there, and very strong. A lot of Tasha's that we have seen so far is clearly rushed out content either to appease some accusation or to catter to a very vocal portion of the audience. Very few of the "samples" we were shown are truly thought of. Hell the UA Revised Ranger of 2016 is way better than the BS we've been shown/given.As for the archetype read this again.Oofta is perfectly right. These three sentences just resume the whole argument. AndD&D has been this enduring and popular exactly because of the archetypes. This is what made it both distinctive and unique. Removing these just remove a big bunch of what D&D is. Other games tried this approach and are now lost to history.</blockquote>

Verification